4 ms·

Wow getting a “Agree or piss off” GDPR message. Pretty sure that’s not ok.

by holografix 8y ago

sbuk 8y ago
That’s definitely not ok.
cryptoz 8y ago
It might not be okay to you, but isn't that exactly what GDPR is supposed to do?
- notimetorelax 8y ago
  Almost, they must offer the same experience to those who opt out of the targeted ads and other non essential profiling. Since profiling is not required for their service to work, they have to give access to the content even if I opt out.
- nightcracker 8y ago
  No. From: https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-43/ https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-43/ > Consent is presumed not to be freely given if ..., or if the performance of a contract, including the provision of a service, is dependent on the consent despite such consent not being necessary for such performance. It is not necessary to consent to data collection for a person to read Slate's article, therefore walling their article behind a consent button means the consent is not freely given. In other words - you can't lock a site behind a consent button. Either you provide the site regardless of data collection consent, or you don't provide it at all - period.
  - ceejayoz 8y ago
    > In other words - you can't lock a site behind a consent button. You can't lock a site under European jurisdiction behind a consent button. I don't see how any of this can apply to Slate, unless the EU wants to start reciprocally start enforcing, say, Saudi law on European websites.
    - opencl 8y ago
      But they clearly rolled out this change in response to the GDPR. If they thought the GDPR didn't apply to them they wouldn't have changed the old behavior of the site.
  - kodablah 8y ago
    > or you don't provide it at all This is the option they should take.
nopriorarrests 8y ago
I decided to check their Privacy Policy to see if I can get access to content without giving universal approval to whatever practices they have, and this is just hysterical: The Right to Withdraw Consent. If you would like to opt-out at any time, please delete the “gdpr_consent_1” cookie from your browser window. You will have to opt-in again in order to view Slate content.
ceejayoz 8y ago
Why is that not OK (on a legal level, not a moral one) for a US corporation to do?
- notimetorelax 8y ago
  In the world of global trade many countries abide by US regulations, e.g. European banks go great lengths to abide by US tax law. GDPR is but one example where this works in the reverse. There are ways for US companies to be exempt from it, and what slate does is not one of them. Edit: Digging a bit deeper, Graham Holdings, owner of Slate, have European presence. So they might care to be compliant.
- kodablah 8y ago
  And if presumably not OK, is just a "piss off" message OK?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

Wow getting a “Agree or piss off” GDPR message. Pretty sure that’s not ok.

sbuk 8y ago

That’s definitely not ok.

cryptoz 8y ago

It might not be okay to you, but isn't that exactly what GDPR is supposed to do?

notimetorelax 8y ago
Almost, they must offer the same experience to those who opt out of the targeted ads and other non essential profiling. Since profiling is not required for their service to work, they have to give access to the content even if I opt out.
nightcracker 8y ago
No. From: https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-43/ https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-43/ > Consent is presumed not to be freely given if ..., or if the performance of a contract, including the provision of a service, is dependent on the consent despite such consent not being necessary for such performance. It is not necessary to consent to data collection for a person to read Slate's article, therefore walling their article behind a consent button means the consent is not freely given. In other words - you can't lock a site behind a consent button. Either you provide the site regardless of data collection consent, or you don't provide it at all - period.
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  > In other words - you can't lock a site behind a consent button. You can't lock a site under European jurisdiction behind a consent button. I don't see how any of this can apply to Slate, unless the EU wants to start reciprocally start enforcing, say, Saudi law on European websites.
  - opencl 8y ago
    But they clearly rolled out this change in response to the GDPR. If they thought the GDPR didn't apply to them they wouldn't have changed the old behavior of the site.
- kodablah 8y ago
  > or you don't provide it at all This is the option they should take.

nopriorarrests 8y ago

I decided to check their Privacy Policy to see if I can get access to content without giving universal approval to whatever practices they have, and this is just hysterical: The Right to Withdraw Consent. If you would like to opt-out at any time, please delete the “gdpr_consent_1” cookie from your browser window. You will have to opt-in again in order to view Slate content.

ceejayoz 8y ago

Why is that not OK (on a legal level, not a moral one) for a US corporation to do?

notimetorelax 8y ago
In the world of global trade many countries abide by US regulations, e.g. European banks go great lengths to abide by US tax law. GDPR is but one example where this works in the reverse. There are ways for US companies to be exempt from it, and what slate does is not one of them. Edit: Digging a bit deeper, Graham Holdings, owner of Slate, have European presence. So they might care to be compliant.
kodablah 8y ago
And if presumably not OK, is just a "piss off" message OK?
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]